"Intellectual property laws in the United States generally don't protect functional items..."

Not true. Patent law protects functional items. The issue is that much furniture would not meet the bar for patentability, mainly novelty and nonobviousness.

I really only see a problem with knockoffs of designs from designers who are still relying on their designs to make a living or who are relatively new. I see no problem with buying an Eames knockoff since the only people profiting from it are probably not struggling in any way.

When products have such a huge price difference, you can't really use the argument of "they are stealing my livelihood". Um. No. The person buying a $100 knockoff would have never shelled out the thousands the original company is asking for. If the knockoff didn't exist, they just wouldn't have bought it. Period. Also, a commentor from the original article made a good point. Would you tell people to stop buying generic medication because they are stealing from the original pharmaceutical company? Probably not.

Personally, I think you should buy what you can afford, and what you like.

I don't agree with knock offs per se (your design should be your design), but I sure as heck don't have $5,000 or more to spend on a real Eames chair.

If good design is supposed to be timeless, it either needs to be affordable for the masses, or understood that there will always be knockoffs for those who can't afford the real deal.

I cannot wait to see the flame war that's bound to happen. Every time we compare knockoffs to real deal, there's always some very strong opinions that come out.

Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery, after all?

Designer companies don't lose money to knock offs. That is a problematic myth. Seems to be based on an absurd assumption that everyone who buys a knock off would magically feel compelled to buy the (pricey) original if only that pesky cheap thing weren't there. The fact is that familiarity with a design concept gets those with means exposed to the original and this facilitates sales. The open exchange of ideas allows for cheaper objects to become better designs. The myth of the genius designer needs to end.

If you weren't ever going to buy the original anyway (usually because of the high price) you aren't taking anything away from the designer of the original by buying a knockoff. I doubt that the people who can afford the original would be happy with a knockoff so they'll still be buying the pricy originals just as if there were no knockoffs. It's probably "wrong" in a strictly ethical sense though most of us have to live in the pragmatic world. Some knockoffs aren't good deals because of lower production values so you have to judge for yourself if something is worth it or not. Just paying big bucks for a name? Not for me. If the knockoff has the same functionality and looks at a lower price and it's something I need then I'd go for a knockoff.

There's a good TED talk about intellectual property rights and fashion (which pretty much falls into the same category as furniture design - practical item elevated to "art" at times): http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

Wow, that (original) article was pointless. Most of the issue around knockoffs is about so-called classic pieces, not those of struggling young designers. My guess is that Dwell doesn't want to address that issue to avoid upsetting their advertisers.

The point made by an earlier poster comparing knockoff Eames, etc to generic drugs is an interesting one.

If you can't afford to buy the original why not wait and save money in your piggy bank, the old school way? Because consumerism demands you to have it NOW? Because you want to PRETEND that you can afford it? Isn't it better to look for cheaper stuff by young designers and have clear conscience?
When buying designer piece you pay not only for the materials used, but also for the clever idea. Not all people have clever ideas on their own, but that doesn't mean they have the right to steal them from others.

This is one of those issues where I see a lot of shades of gray. For something like the Eames chair, I agree with the comments here -- a $100 knock-off isn't hurting them because that buyer probably wouldn't be shelling out for the genuine article anyway.

What bothers me is when I hear about a large company ripping off the design of a small time designer. I've read several articles about Urban Outfitters stealing ideas, and there's also this about H&M: H&M Rips Off Atlanta Artist, Does Damage Control on Facebook

Imitation is the sincerest form...and so on. There is usually a quality difference between knock-offs and the originals (not always, and some knockoff furniture is actually better made than the originals). So you can argue that the item is "inspired by" the original rather than copied. Why should furniture be any different than clothing? Within hours of the Academy Awards red-carpet broadcast, copies of all the celebrities' gowns are in the works and ready for preorder. That's fashion. And furniture is part of fashion.

I am an underpaid public servant who bought a knock-off Barcelona chair and ottoman for about $600. The Knoll edition retails for over $5000 for just the chair. Never in my lifetime would I pay that much for ANY chair, not even one hand crafted and signed by the designer. I just cannot afford it. So Knoll didn't lose a sale. Without the knockoff, I would have had to settle for some entirely different chair style, probably thrift, and I wouldn't have the pleasure of having something I consider elegant and streamlined in my bedroom.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe died in 1969, according to Wikipedia. He no longer cares.

My chair seems to me to be well constructed and very comparable looking to the Real Deal. If they can sell the SET for $600, I have to believe that something wonky is up with Knoll's production costs or profit margins. There shouldn't be more than $4500 difference in a perfectly acceptable knockoff and the official version -- we aren't talking solid gold parts, here.

If companies like Knoll are bothered by knockoffs, maybe they should find ways to reduce the cost to consumer. I have no use for the elitist mentality of designing only for the rich, and the rest of the world can just admire from a distance. Even if I don't have money, I do have taste, and I will try to get the look I like, even if it means buying "reproductions".

That said, I do see a difference between this and buying forgeries or rip-offs of the work or current artists. (Maybe furniture designers sometimes straddle the line into "artist" to me, but not universally.) I wouldn't copy another artists' work and I wouldn't buy a known copy. My ethical line has more to do with dead artists/designers and ridiculous pricing.

Everybody has their own standards, I suppose.

If I find a great pair of jeans I love for $500 and a pair of jeans in the same cut, wash, and fabric that is produced ethically (no sweat shops) for $100, I am going to buy the $100 pair of jeans. If a company can produce a chair that has the same aesthetics, functionality, and comfort as a designer chair that costs 10-50 times as much, then why wouldn't I go for the less expensive chair? Just for the benefit of having a designer chair? Furthermore, companies that produce designer chairs can charge whatever they want for them. If they want to charge $5,000 a chair, then they're going to be competing with companies that can produce the same chair for much cheaper. As long as the knock-off isn't trying to pass itself off as the real deal (by slapping on a label that says Knohl Eemes, for example), then I don't see what the problem is.

@jen83, the reason generic drugs can be sold is that drug patents expire. Period. It's not comparable to design. BTW, the way drug companies milk expired patents is to redesign or repackage the drug by piggybacking it on another. For instance, the migraine medication Imitrex (Sumatriptan) lost patent protection a few years ago, so Glaxo came out with a sumatriptan-naproxen (Aleve) pill called Treximet ... which is patented and is the same as taking a generic sumatriptan pill with an over-the-counter Aleve. The only ones being robbed are we consumers who pay for the insurance and Medicare reimbursements...but I digress.

I agree with the above statement that the article falls short by not talking about present day designs and designers- only typical MCC versions which are now sold by big manufacturers, not the designers themselves.

Although I adore my classic pieces that I inherited (I could never afford them on my own), I also understand that the very point of many of these designs were to be accessible to the masses (Eames, et al) - not exclusive to Herman Miller or whoever now sells them.

Also, I recently purchased a knockoff molded plastic "Eiffel" chair and I'm glad that I paid $100 for it and not $500 as I promise the only difference is that the receipt was not from DWR. I like to think that the Eamses would be psyched that I beat the system. Also, you gets what you pay for- some knockoffs are crap. So there's that...

Finally, I might "steal" this story and use it on my own design blog. So BAM! The knock-off cycle continues! Xo.

I don't see how a design patent wouldn't cover many furniture designs. Apple uses them a lot, and has been successful in defending them in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Yes. I have never understood why new examples long-dead designers' pieces can still fetch many thousands. I can understand vintage antiques, but I wonder how much of the $5,000 price for a new Barcelona Chair is pure profit for Knoll.

Different situation, but I recently looked for a pair of vintage MCM lounge chairs. Prices for certain brands/designers approached the five figures. That's fine--if you can afford it. I couldn't. Besides, I knew if I had spent that much on the chairs I would feel a need to keep them for the rest of my life. You know, maybe I will want different chairs in 20 years or so... I ended up with a perfectly nice pair of chairs from what I would consider a second-tier brand. More importantly, they look good in my space and I don't feel married to them. If ever I decide that I want to change my look, I won't have any trouble selling them to a new owner.

I say, buy what you can afford, and a lot of people cannot afford $5,000 chairs and $10,000 couches.

@rural.. I know patents expire and that is why generic medication exists. I'm looking at it from a moral viewpoint, not a legal one. If you want to look at it solely from a legal viewpoint, then you should have no problem with knockoffs since the their design wasn't protected in the first place, right? Even if the designs were patented in the 1950's, it would've expired long ago since patents are only renewed in very rare cases.

Again, I do have a problem with knockoffs of designers who are still active and selling their products to make a living. But let's not pretend the guys at Herman Miller are sitting in their backyard sheds hand crafting Eames chairs.

If designers and their heirs were not so greedy that they will only sell/license their designs for many multiples of what they cost to produce, there would be no knock-offs. If designers and their heirs want to sell more of their originals, they have only to price them with a lower profit margin. There is no simply no reason for most relatively basic wood, steel, sheepskin, or leather chairs (including iconic mid-century or modern designs) to cost $1,500 to $12,000.

Oddly, it seems that most designers prefer for their designs to be used by a relatively few people willing and able to spend a fortune on their design rather than by the masses who can only afford to pay a reasonable sum on their furniture. I'd argue that design that is too expensive for most is bad design.

If you design for pure consumerism, then of course knock-offs are bad for business. Even if the people buying knock-offs could never afford your original pieces, it hurts your overall "brand".

But if you design as a means of expression, then knock-offs are meaningless. I can splatter paint on a canvas, but I’ll never be Jackson Pollock. And I don’t think the MoMA will come knocking on my door. But they might buy more original Pollock’s, because my knock-offs make him more relevant.

I'll say here what I said on Dwell's site:

This is an appalling article that panders to a fraudulent industry. And I speak from experience, having been a furniture retailer who dealt repeatedly with the purveyors of "original" designs. As another reader points out, the whole point of early modernism was to make mass-produced pieces anyone could afford. The racket that has grown up on the backs of long-dead designers is nothing short of extortion, and the "intellectual property" defense is sheer self-serving nonsense. These companies run exorbitantly expensive showrooms around the world, selling their wares to "designers" whose profits depend on the exclusivity of the products they can deliver. Creative originality has NOTHING to do with it; the whole point is to maintain the aura of authenticity for wealthy elites to brag about. The high prices are a form of enclosure—they keep out the riff-raff. And Dwell is only too happy to pitch in to the cause. Shame on you.

Michael K, you hit the brass nail on the head!

the originals were designed and manufactured for ppl who were above the average person income-wise, status-wise etc.

sooner or later there werre going to be reproductions that the average person can afford without having to tell their kids there will be no new shoes and jackets for them this year.

we NEED affordability. these designer items did their job... they got the attention of everyone. good for them. now let me buy my knockoff, be happy to have something nice looking in my house and leave me alone.

ppbbbtthh!

If the designers really wanted ppl to be able to afford these designer items that have been around for 60, 70, even 80 years they could! they keep the prices at a certain level because if they actually made these items affordable,. then they wouldn't be rare and highly coveted.

there is a certain level or status of ppl they want to keep their items OUT of the hands of. they do all this on purpose.

Yeah, what Michael K. said. Also, Design within Reach which is where many people turn to get the real deal, sold funiture which was a little bit too much inspired by other peoples design as well. http://www.fastcompany.com/node/1460614/print Just that the designers they copied weren't long dead. So yeah, most of the things those companies say about knock-offs, fakes and real is about money, not authenticity or integrity.

The first thing that came to my mind reading this was Urban Outfitters/H&M and their habit of knocking off talented designers and selling to the masses. It's awful and they deserve every bit of scorn they've received.

But it works the other way, too. The people selling knockoff Eames chairs aren't Robin Hood - they're profiteers.

I own not one, but two knock-off Barcelona chairs bought before Knoll cracked down on trying to enforce its trademark on Mies van der Rohe's long since expired design patent. They were bought because only armless chairs would work in our tiny space, the cat hair wouldn't stick to the leather, they are super sturdy and comfortable, and we liked the design. And the two together cost $700. There is no way I would ever spend $10-grand on two chairs, despite all the things going for them. In fact, $700 at the time was quite a splurge. Not to mention the claim of company trademark on an expired patent is a little questionable, imo. This is but one specific example, and I do agree that knock offs of living designers with items currently in new production is a totally different thing.

Get a used version of what you truly want! With all the resources we have at our finger tips ie. etsy, ebay, craigslist, 1stdibs, etc., it is easier than ever to get what you want for a deal!

Design Within Reach of the 1%. Sorry, I'm not buyin'.

The design of a piece of furniture can be covered by a design patent. Shoe companies do it every day to protect the "look" of a new design. The design patent currently only lasts 14 years and then the design slips into the public domain. So, if any of the classic designs we love were ever patented, they have long expired and others are free to make the designs if they wish. Intellectual property can be obtained, but it only lasts for a few years so it doesn't really help in the long term. This article is not entirely correct.

"Less expensive pieces" from "local designers" --- I haven't seen these, ever.

Local designers don't sell less expensive items, not to mention they're a bit to "kitschy" for me.

Pretty much have the choice on the affordable end of buying generic nasty mass produced furniture, and knock offs that usually cost the same or less, while being better put together. A lot of these knock off companies seem to take quality control far more seriously than the department store brands.

Beyond bedroom suites and lounges it's pretty hard to get a nice table, chair or lamp that isn't a knock off. I definitely have no desire to fill my house with cheap pine local furniture either.

Knock offs being sold as genuine are the problem, they will have a closer cost to the original and may be of lower quality. Knock offs sold as replica's for 1/10th of the cost of an original though? That person was never buying an original.

Unfortunately if you don't live in the USA or Europe it's pretty much impossible to get bargain second hand designer furniture.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/10/160746195/why-knockoffs-are-good-for-the-fashion-industry

I bought a knock off Bourgie lamp for <$100, and I love it. I'm not going to live in the dark while scrimping and saving for the "real" thing (like one commenter suggested). I need light! And at the end of the day, it's just molded plastic and a cord. Mine is even UL listed like the original!

Is the whole point of wanting say, an Eames chair, because you appreciate its design? The word design itself infers skill, proccess, intent and creativity. By buying a reproduction piece (made by someone who has 'stolen' the design), aren't you demeaning the true value of that peice from a design point of view?

If you can't understand why the original costs $10,000 (or aren't willing to pay) then you don't get the point!

look harder

Most of Danish mid-century furniture was designed with the ethos of combining design, craft, functionality and affordability. Many of the great designers/architects also produced designs that they sold to the larger factories - which is why there is so much great unbranded stuff from that time! Finally, even those designs that where then and now produced more expensively, many were designed around "innovative" production methods (bentwood, etc.) chosen to ease and speed up their making, as well as allowing for exceptional new forms. The prices much of it is sold at today are OUTRAGEOUS.

Yet in Denmark it is still considered extremely gauche to have replicas....

I am willing to pay a lot for craft - a real Egg or Barcelona chair IS exceptional and can never be matched. Perhaps it is more a question of the profit margins v. price-point that something needs to be at to be considered good enough for the luxury market, which is more stable than others. We sell less, but we make more money?

PS. McDonald's got a lot of publicity for buying real Egg chairs for their UK restaurants:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/style/21iht-design24.1.7594146.html?_r=0
....then furnished all the rest with fakes/replicas. I leave in a "dodgy" area of London and got the fakes. Plastic Fantastic.....
http://the-egg-chair.com/mcdonalds-accused-of-stealing-arnes-work.

PPS. I would feel a bit funny about it - I wouldn't wear "fake" branded big-ticket fashion item, say a bag or shoes, even if I loved the design.....HMMM....

PPS. I AM very much in love with this though.....the original is around $ 4,000 I think....
http://www.bluesuntree.co.uk/site/living/sofas/finn-juhl-poet-sofa-2-seat-reproduction

SIGH. It's not easy, is it?

Wow. So the argument boils down to, "Like, OMG! I wanted it but I couldn't afford it so, like, I *had* to steal it!"

Nice.

If you can't afford to buy the original why not wait and save money in your piggy bank, the old school way? Because consumerism demands you to have it NOW? Because you want to PRETEND that you can afford it?
No...because I don't want to live in a house full of Wal-Mart and Ikea until I'm 50. I don't care what people think I paid for it; I don't know anyone who buys replicas in hopes their friends think they're rich. We just want attractive furniture of decent quality. Design should not be limited to the 1%.

Isn't it better to look for cheaper stuff by young designers and have clear conscience?
That's a nice theory but I've never seen "cheaper stuff by young designers." And I live in New York, where presumably they would be. Links please.

I'm glad the article and discussion wound up here. When I first read the Dwell piece, it gave me a lot to think about. I care about design and quality, so I should stand up for those ideals. I want to invest in quality pieces that stand the test of time. I also started thinking of how much "junk" we modern Americans make and buy annually, rather than buying quality items.

Then the 'Capitalist' side of me kicked in. I'm not sure what the profit margin is for most DWR items, but I don't think they're exactly hurting. Weren't most Eames products made to be cheaply mass-produced?? Wasn't that the purpose? If we are to buy designer pieces, you can't price them sky-high. Maybe the designer pieces shouldn't be "luxury priced". Maybe those prices should be reduced so that those of us who treasure them can afford them. The pricing of these items is what has created the void that the knock-offs has filled. If there was only a $100-300 dollar difference between a knock-off Jacobsen or Saarenin and the real thing, I wouldn't think twice about springing for the real thing.

So, everyone is apparently in agreement that good design and good construction has value, and it's not all that easy to come by, but they'd rather rip-off someone's intellectual property and have decided to rationalize it with the simple idea of desiring it?

Now I understand why, as a designer, I'm ripped-off all of the time.

No. It's silly to spend thousands on a chair when you can get it for hundreds. Some people would have to save for years for one chair and that is ridiculous. Young, new designers have to charge quite a bit just to get their money back on their products and it is worth it for good carpentry and craftsmanship but not for a chair that has been around for 50+ years and is massed produced. I think most people buying a knock off item here or there is trying to fool anyone.

What I really want to know is how many of you saying "buy the knockoff" were supporting Apple in its recent fight with Samsung about the very same design infringement issues?

Originals cost more because designers need to make a living too.

these items that were designed 70 -50 years ago have been mass producing for a heck of a long time.

long enough to have milked the designs for a LOT of money over the years.

if the designs are public, then good for everyone who takes advantage of that.

i like how something looks, and i am going to pay a realistic price that suits my bidget.

scrimp and save and in the end still shell out 3-4 grand for a chair? who the heck are the ppl who live on average incomes and are foolish or self absorbed enough to think that is wise spending?

ppl have gotten too used to living out of their means. no thanks. i will buy what i can afford easily, and pay prices that i think are justified, and still clothe my children, put food on the table and live a reasonably humble life with no other debt than my mortgage.

if that is in poor taste for some ppl, then i am gloriously glad that those ppl have nothing to do with my life. sheesh!

Knock offs help a high end designer by promoting is status and lack of attainability. Oh this is a REAL LV bag. All those peasants wish they were me.